The IRS is preparing for an expanded
role as the collection agency and enforcement arm for the embattled
Affordable Care Act. In what the Treasury Department calls “the largest expansion of IRS
responsibilities in recent history,” the IRS will be enlisted to gather and
maintain enrollment information, levy fines and distribute insurance subsidies.
Given how the IRS has misused its power in recent years, the prospect of
a supersized, super-empowered IRS should give us pause.

It pays to recall that from early 2010 through early 2013, the IRS division charged with reviewing applications
for nonprofit status scoured
applications for “anti-Obama rhetoric,”
“negative Obama commentary,” and words such as “patriot” and “tea party.” The notion that
terms like “tea party” or “patriot” would be a red flag for tax-agency scrutiny
in America—a country born out of a tax revolt—gives fresh meaning to irony. But
that was just the tip of the iceberg.

The IRS demanded that flagged
organizations produce donor lists (something outside normal procedure). Some applicants
were required to fill out 88-page questionnaires. Others were ordered to hand
over correspondence, screenshots of their Facebook and Twitter accounts, and information
about the books their leadership was reading. As The Politicoconcluded, “The agency wanted to know everything.”Many groups saw their
applications languish for years. One group heard nothing from the IRS for 459
days and then was required to produce 90
pieces of corroborating documentation in less than three weeks, at which time
the application file would be closed and denied. Some groups simply gave up.

The IRS initially blamed all this on “rogue” employees. In
fact, the effort to screen and slow-walk conservative
groups applying for tax-exempt status, which the president rightly called
“inexcusable,” was systemic and planned. As Forbes magazine detailed in an excellent timelineof the scandal, by August 2010, the IRS had developed “be on the lookout” criteria for flagging and reviewing
so-called “tea party” organizations applying for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) tax
exempt status. By June 2011, the director of the IRS office of tax-exempt organizations
was advised of the micro-targeting operation.

When the scandal finally came
to light in May 2013, the president declared, “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior
in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the
reach that it has into all of our lives…it should not matter what political
stripe you’re from.”

He’s right about that, but we know that politics was the
main reason the IRS did what it did. Here’s why.

Nonprofit status—especially 501(c)(3)status—is important for two reasons. First, it allows an organization to claim
exemption from many forms of taxation. Second, it allows those who contribute
to the organization to claim a tax deduction. Nonprofits operating under
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code focus on religious, charitable,
scientific or educational activity. Under their “educational” mission, they are
permitted to support or oppose policies by speaking before legislative bodies,
convening events and publishing materials. But they have to be careful about
engaging in outright lobbying. Those 501(c)(3)s that do engage in lobbying have
to fill out special forms and limit the amount of resources they devote to
lobbying.

Nonprofits operating under section 501(c)(4),
on the other hand, can engage in unlimited lobbying—but only if it falls within
the organization’s mission. Unlike a 501(c)(3), a 501(c)(4) can engage in partisan
political activity, endorse or oppose candidates, or donate money to campaigns.
However, donations made to 501(c)(4)s are not
deductible.

This detour through the tax code helps explain why
politically-motivated IRS reviewers slow-walked or flatly denied applications
from certain groups: Without nonprofit status, those groups would be less able
to raise money and hence less able to oppose or support certain policies and
candidates. In other words, the actions of the IRS had a chilling effect on the
legitimate, legal activities of dozens of nascent nonprofits and thousands of
American citizens—before and during the elections of 2010 and 2012.

In fact, the Treasury
Department inspector general found that 292 small-government groups were subjected to extra
scrutiny by the IRS, while just six progressive groups were targeted. “Our
audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with ‘tea party,’
‘patriots’ or ‘9/12’ in their names were processed as potential political
cases,” the inspector general reported. But only 30 percent of groups with “progress” or
“progressive” were flagged for extra scrutiny. (The 9/12 Project describes
itself as “a volunteer based, non-partisan movement focusing on building and
uniting our communities back to the place we were on 9/12/2001.”)

Given that some 501(c)s have,
in the past, pushed the boundaries of their nonprofit status and engaged in outright
politicking, a tightening of the tax-exempt law may be in order. But that
should be done by lawmakers in statute—not politically motivated IRS officials.

But this is not really about the IRS or taxes. After all, scripture
tells us Jesus was “a friend of tax collectors.” He called on his followers to
pay their taxes and respect the law, and so should we.

At its core, this is about fairness and the proper role of
government. Our government exists to serve the people. The people do not exist to serve the
government. Respect it, yes. Follow its laws, yes. Pray for its
officials, absolutely. But not serve it. As Becky
Gerritson, who heads one of the groups targeted by the IRS, said in testimony
before Congress, “I’m not here as a serf or a vassal. I’m not begging my lord
for mercy. I’m a born-free American woman, wife, mother and citizen, and I’m
telling my government that you’ve forgotten your place.”

It’s fundamentally unjust to subject one group of citizens
to a more stringent government test, to require them to do more to receive
government approval for nonprofit status, to demand that they, in effect, prove
their innocence before receiving that approval. As Jefferson said, America’s government
is about “equal and exact justice to all men, of
whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.”

The unequal administration of justice is, by definition, unjust. And that
should bother us as believers—regardless of political persuasion. An IRS
micro-targeting operation against left-wing groups like Code Pink or
big-government groups like MoveOne.org would have been just as wrong, just as
perverse, just as inexcusable. In this regard, it’s
worth noting that the IRS logo features a scale—a
timeless and universal symbol of justice.

The centrality of justice runs through the Bible like a mighty
river. It was justice that cried out after Cain
killed Abel. Leviticus 19 calls on all people to “use honest scales and honest
weights.” Deuteronomy 16 warns, “Do not pervert justice or show
partiality.” Psalm 58 asks a nation’s rulers, “Do you judge people
with equity?” Isaiah dreamed of a day when “rulers
will rule with justice.” Jesus
promised to lead justice through to victory (Matthew
12, Luke 11).

Our government, like
all things created and administered by human beings, is imperfect. Yet because
it is made up of human beings, it has the capacity to know right from wrong, to
use power responsibly. The IRS has failed to do that. Its poisoning of the
nonprofit-review process calls into question its ability to handle the healthcare-related
tasks that loom in the year ahead.

Dowd writes a monthly column exploring the crossroads of faith and public policy for byFaith.